A REVIEW OF PBL LITERATURE PBL Defined PBL is a learner-centered, constructivist-based instructional approach that is designed to support deeper, more engaged learning. This approach uses “projects” as vehicles to encourage student motivation, contextualize content and concepts, and to provide a means for demonstrating and explaining what they have learned. The Buck Institute for Education (BIE) has put forth a widely-used definition of PBL as “a systematic teaching method that engages students in learning knowledge and skills through an extended inquiry process structured around complex, authentic (real-life) questions and carefully designed products and tasks” (2003, p. 4). Although there are subtle differences, this approach has much in common with problem-based or inquiry-based instruction (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008; Savery, 2006). In practice, “many educators will refer to the same activity interchangeably as ‘project-based’ or ‘problem-based’ learning, or simply ‘PBL’“ (Mitchell et al., 2005, p. 40). What matters is the practices used, not the terminology. All of these approaches attempt to promote academic rigor while promoting “soft skills” such as critical thinking, communication and collaboration (e.g., Trilling & Hood, 1999). They often encourage students to be responsible and resourceful for their own learning, to solve open-ended problems, and usually to create and present artifacts as demonstrations of their learning. In PBL students conduct in-depth investigations, sometimes utilize technology, apply reasoning and self-management skills, create projects, synthesize information, lead presentations, and often work in groups. PBL’s Significance Politicians, business leaders, and educators are calling for school reforms that reflect the needs of society. President Obama, for example, has urged states to develop standards "that don't simply measure whether students can fill in a bubble on a test but whether they possess 21st century skills like problem-solving and critical thinking, entrepreneurship and creativity" (CNN, 2009). The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2011) claims that a profound gap exists between the knowledge and skills that most students learn in school and the knowledge and skills they need in today’s workplace (2011). Darling-Hammond (2008) states that the new demands of society cannot be met through passive, rote-oriented learning focused on basic skills and memorization of disconnected facts, while Wagner (2008) contends that the world has changed, while our schools have not, becoming obsolete.
In response to these calls for innovation, PBL has become a key pedagogy for the small high school movement, as reported by evaluators for the Bill & Melinda Gates Small Schools initiative. “Among the schools in this initiative that reported efforts to implement a common pedagogy across all classes, project-based learning (PBL) is the most commonly cited instructional strategy.” (American Institutes for Research & SRI International, 2004, p. 65). Organizations that are helping advance PBL use include the Buck Institute for Education, the Center of Excellence in Leadership for Learning, Edutopia, Expeditionary Learning Schools (1999), Big Picture Schools, Apple (2011) and reform models like New Tech and High Tech High (Ravitz, 2009).
While few policy initiatives specifically endorse PBL by name, there are many initiatives (e.g., focused on small schools, youth development, technology integration, performance assessment, and 21st century skills) that have led to a wave of interest. An early Partnership for 21st century skills state, West Virginia, has made major investments in PBL (Ravitz, Hixson, English & Mergendoller, 2012;West Virginia Department of Education, 2008; Williamson, 2008). Another PBL-intensive state is Indiana, with over 1000 teachers receiving professional development in the last couple of years (Gillenwaters, 2009; Staff Reports, 2011; University of Indianapolis, 2010; Indiana University School of Education-Indianapolis, 2010; 2012). Further indication of interest in PBL is that the UTEACH program, a major pre-service STEM program that is extending to multiple campuses, has a full course about project based instruction (Petrosino, 2012). Outside the US there is also substantial interest in PBL, as reflected in Appendix A, on the world map shown on the Problem Based Education SIG (2012) web page, in convenings like Republic Polytechnic (2007) and in the letter of support we have received from Israel in Appendix D.
Challenges for teachers Like the implementation of other classroom innovations, implementation of PBL poses some challenges for educational systems. The more open-ended, dynamic, and student-centered format of PBL holds more complexity for teachers than does the direct transmission of knowledge, which is more prescriptive, linear, and teacher-directed (Darling-Hammond, 2008). Cohen (1988) notes that teachers who choose to implement PBL “must work harder, concentrate more, and embrace larger pedagogical responsibilities than if they only assigned text chapters and seatwork" (p. 255). Not only is PBL more complex, but classroom practices associated with it—including planning, classroom management, the roles of the teacher and students, the process of knowledge creation, and means of assessing student work—go against the grain of what most teachers learned in their pre-service programs, of how they learned themselves, and of what they have seen modeled (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Smith, 1996; Pedersen & Liu, 2003; Nelson & Harper, 2006). Additionally, accountability pressures related to high stakes tests have resulted in more emphasis on rote memorization and less emphasis on activities that involve more complex reasoning, such as projects and research papers (Koretz, Linn, Dunbar, & Shepard, 1991; Linn, 2000; Linn, Graue, & Sanders, 1990).
Challenges for students Learners in PBL are expected to take responsibility for their learning and manage the learning process. To do this effectively, it is clear that students in the PBL environment must be able to motivate themselves, focus their efforts and attention appropriately, monitor and evaluate their progress, and seek help as needed. Blumenfeld et al. (1991) found that students in PBL needed to “be far more responsible for guiding and controlling their own activities and focusing their work on the creation of artifacts over a long period of time” (p. 379). According to Brush and Saye (2001), this shift in responsibility does not occur naturally or easily. Due to lack of experience and knowledge with self-directed learning, students may become confused or frustrated if they do not receive the support or guidance needed to be successful (Ertmer & Simons, 2006).
Impact of PBL Research suggests that PBL is not only aligned with information age skills, but also has a number of academic and other benefits. Many studies have reported positive changes in student motivation, attitude toward learning, critical thinking and problem-solving skills resulting from their participation in project-based learning (Bartscher, Gould, & Nutter, 1995; Peck, Peck, Sentz, & Zasa, 1998; Tretten & Zachariou, 1995). Others have emphasized PBL as a form of rigorous content delivery, finding improved cognitive outcomes for students, but no similar gains in motivation and affective outcomes (Kanter & Konstantopoulos, 2010). The impact varies based on design and implementation approaches.
The measured impact of PBL also depends on the kinds of outcomes that are analyzed (Belland, French & Ertmer, 2008). For most important outcomes (with the exception of short-term concept learning), PBL appears to be as effective as traditional instructional approaches, and there are many studies that show PBL to be superior (Edutopia, 2001; Buck Institute for Education, 2009; Strobel & van Barneveld, 2008; Walker & Leary, 2008). Specifically, PBL type instruction has been shown at times to increase understanding of concepts and the ability to apply knowledge as measured by standardized tests of subject matter (e.g., Geier et al., 2008; Hickey, Kindfled, Horwitz, & Christie, 1999; Mergendoller, Maxwell, & Bellisimo, 2007; Walker & Leary, 2008); to enable students to remember what they have learned longer and use that knowledge in new situations (e.g., Dochy, Segers, Van den Bossche, & Gijbels, 2003; Schwartz & Martin, 2004; Strobel & van Barneveld, 2008); to enable students to learn how to work in groups, solve problems, and communicate what they have learned (e.g., Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992; Gallagher, Stepien, & Rosenthal, 1992; Hmelo, 1998); to improve attitudes and motivation (e.g.,Boaler,1997); and to be especially effective with lower achieving students (e.g., Geier et al., 2008; Hickey et al., 1999; Lynch, Kuipers, Pyke, & Szesze, 2005; Mergendoller et al., 2007) Recent groundbreaking studies using strong PBL designs, rigorous research methods and high quality assessments of learning include Finkelstein, et. al. (2010) and Boss, et. al. (2011).
PBL Defined PBL is a learner-centered, constructivist-based instructional approach that is designed to support deeper, more engaged learning. This approach uses “projects” as vehicles to encourage student motivation, contextualize content and concepts, and to provide a means for demonstrating and explaining what they have learned. The Buck Institute for Education (BIE) has put forth a widely-used definition of PBL as “a systematic teaching method that engages students in learning knowledge and skills through an extended inquiry process structured around complex, authentic (real-life) questions and carefully designed products and tasks” (2003, p. 4). Although there are subtle differences, this approach has much in common with problem-based or inquiry-based instruction (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008; Savery, 2006). In practice, “many educators will refer to the same activity interchangeably as ‘project-based’ or ‘problem-based’ learning, or simply ‘PBL’“ (Mitchell et al., 2005, p. 40). What matters is the practices used, not the terminology. All of these approaches attempt to promote academic rigor while promoting “soft skills” such as critical thinking, communication and collaboration (e.g., Trilling & Hood, 1999). They often encourage students to be responsible and resourceful for their own learning, to solve open-ended problems, and usually to create and present artifacts as demonstrations of their learning. In PBL students conduct in-depth investigations, sometimes utilize technology, apply reasoning and self-management skills, create projects, synthesize information, lead presentations, and often work in groups.
PBL’s Significance Politicians, business leaders, and educators are calling for school reforms that reflect the needs of society. President Obama, for example, has urged states to develop standards "that don't simply measure whether students can fill in a bubble on a test but whether they possess 21st century skills like problem-solving and critical thinking, entrepreneurship and creativity" (CNN, 2009). The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2011) claims that a profound gap exists between the knowledge and skills that most students learn in school and the knowledge and skills they need in today’s workplace (2011). Darling-Hammond (2008) states that the new demands of society cannot be met through passive, rote-oriented learning focused on basic skills and memorization of disconnected facts, while Wagner (2008) contends that the world has changed, while our schools have not, becoming obsolete.
In response to these calls for innovation, PBL has become a key pedagogy for the small high school movement, as reported by evaluators for the Bill & Melinda Gates Small Schools initiative. “Among the schools in this initiative that reported efforts to implement a common pedagogy across all classes, project-based learning (PBL) is the most commonly cited instructional strategy.” (American Institutes for Research & SRI International, 2004, p. 65). Organizations that are helping advance PBL use include the Buck Institute for Education, the Center of Excellence in Leadership for Learning, Edutopia, Expeditionary Learning Schools (1999), Big Picture Schools, Apple (2011) and reform models like New Tech and High Tech High (Ravitz, 2009).
While few policy initiatives specifically endorse PBL by name, there are many initiatives (e.g., focused on small schools, youth development, technology integration, performance assessment, and 21st century skills) that have led to a wave of interest. An early Partnership for 21st century skills state, West Virginia, has made major investments in PBL (Ravitz, Hixson, English & Mergendoller, 2012;West Virginia Department of Education, 2008; Williamson, 2008). Another PBL-intensive state is Indiana, with over 1000 teachers receiving professional development in the last couple of years (Gillenwaters, 2009; Staff Reports, 2011; University of Indianapolis, 2010; Indiana University School of Education-Indianapolis, 2010; 2012). Further indication of interest in PBL is that the UTEACH program, a major pre-service STEM program that is extending to multiple campuses, has a full course about project based instruction (Petrosino, 2012). Outside the US there is also substantial interest in PBL, as reflected in Appendix A, on the world map shown on the Problem Based Education SIG (2012) web page, in convenings like Republic Polytechnic (2007) and in the letter of support we have received from Israel in Appendix D.
Challenges for teachers Like the implementation of other classroom innovations, implementation of PBL poses some challenges for educational systems. The more open-ended, dynamic, and student-centered format of PBL holds more complexity for teachers than does the direct transmission of knowledge, which is more prescriptive, linear, and teacher-directed (Darling-Hammond, 2008). Cohen (1988) notes that teachers who choose to implement PBL “must work harder, concentrate more, and embrace larger pedagogical responsibilities than if they only assigned text chapters and seatwork" (p. 255). Not only is PBL more complex, but classroom practices associated with it—including planning, classroom management, the roles of the teacher and students, the process of knowledge creation, and means of assessing student work—go against the grain of what most teachers learned in their pre-service programs, of how they learned themselves, and of what they have seen modeled (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Smith, 1996; Pedersen & Liu, 2003; Nelson & Harper, 2006). Additionally, accountability pressures related to high stakes tests have resulted in more emphasis on rote memorization and less emphasis on activities that involve more complex reasoning, such as projects and research papers (Koretz, Linn, Dunbar, & Shepard, 1991; Linn, 2000; Linn, Graue, & Sanders, 1990).
Challenges for students Learners in PBL are expected to take responsibility for their learning and manage the learning process. To do this effectively, it is clear that students in the PBL environment must be able to motivate themselves, focus their efforts and attention appropriately, monitor and evaluate their progress, and seek help as needed. Blumenfeld et al. (1991) found that students in PBL needed to “be far more responsible for guiding and controlling their own activities and focusing their work on the creation of artifacts over a long period of time” (p. 379). According to Brush and Saye (2001), this shift in responsibility does not occur naturally or easily. Due to lack of experience and knowledge with self-directed learning, students may become confused or frustrated if they do not receive the support or guidance needed to be successful (Ertmer & Simons, 2006).
Impact of PBL Research suggests that PBL is not only aligned with information age skills, but also has a number of academic and other benefits. Many studies have reported positive changes in student motivation, attitude toward learning, critical thinking and problem-solving skills resulting from their participation in project-based learning (Bartscher, Gould, & Nutter, 1995; Peck, Peck, Sentz, & Zasa, 1998; Tretten & Zachariou, 1995). Others have emphasized PBL as a form of rigorous content delivery, finding improved cognitive outcomes for students, but no similar gains in motivation and affective outcomes (Kanter & Konstantopoulos, 2010). The impact varies based on design and implementation approaches.
The measured impact of PBL also depends on the kinds of outcomes that are analyzed (Belland, French & Ertmer, 2008). For most important outcomes (with the exception of short-term concept learning), PBL appears to be as effective as traditional instructional approaches, and there are many studies that show PBL to be superior (Edutopia, 2001; Buck Institute for Education, 2009; Strobel & van Barneveld, 2008; Walker & Leary, 2008). Specifically, PBL type instruction has been shown at times to increase understanding of concepts and the ability to apply knowledge as measured by standardized tests of subject matter (e.g., Geier et al., 2008; Hickey, Kindfled, Horwitz, & Christie, 1999; Mergendoller, Maxwell, & Bellisimo, 2007; Walker & Leary, 2008); to enable students to remember what they have learned longer and use that knowledge in new situations (e.g., Dochy, Segers, Van den Bossche, & Gijbels, 2003; Schwartz & Martin, 2004; Strobel & van Barneveld, 2008); to enable students to learn how to work in groups, solve problems, and communicate what they have learned (e.g., Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992; Gallagher, Stepien, & Rosenthal, 1992; Hmelo, 1998); to improve attitudes and motivation (e.g.,Boaler,1997); and to be especially effective with lower achieving students (e.g., Geier et al., 2008; Hickey et al., 1999; Lynch, Kuipers, Pyke, & Szesze, 2005; Mergendoller et al., 2007) Recent groundbreaking studies using strong PBL designs, rigorous research methods and high quality assessments of learning include Finkelstein, et. al. (2010) and Boss, et. al. (2011).